Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset0

like 0

[ "It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.", ">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?", ">\n\nYes, absolutely.", ">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.", ">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.", ">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.", ">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.", ">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.", ">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.", ">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.", ">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.", ">\n\nI think what they is saying is that even though there are no single judge circuits, there are circuits in those states that are exclusively one ideology (or are very close to one). That is the same in practice as shopping a single judge circuit because your outcome is still guaranteed.", ">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.", ">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.", ">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!", ">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power", ">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.", ">\n\nLOL...my god.\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\nWell there you go. The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\nHave a nice day", ">\n\n\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\n\nYes, a panel that is 45% conservative is accurately described as a \"panel of liberal judges\". If you just ignore basic facts, you can paint whatever narrative you wish.\n\nThe problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\n\nYes, actually. You described the problem. You have to file a lawsuit in a federal court against the US government. Filing in a district where you may or may not draw a friendly judge is not the same thing as actually picking the exact judge you want to hear your case. I'm glad we came to an agreement.", ">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.", ">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion." ]

[ "It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.", ">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?", ">\n\nYes, absolutely.", ">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.", ">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.", ">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.", ">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.", ">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.", ">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.", ">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.", ">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.", ">\n\nI think what they is saying is that even though there are no single judge circuits, there are circuits in those states that are exclusively one ideology (or are very close to one). That is the same in practice as shopping a single judge circuit because your outcome is still guaranteed.", ">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.", ">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.", ">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!", ">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power", ">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.", ">\n\nLOL...my god.\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\nWell there you go. The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\nHave a nice day", ">\n\n\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\n\nYes, a panel that is 45% conservative is accurately described as a \"panel of liberal judges\". If you just ignore basic facts, you can paint whatever narrative you wish.\n\nThe problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\n\nYes, actually. You described the problem. You have to file a lawsuit in a federal court against the US government. Filing in a district where you may or may not draw a friendly judge is not the same thing as actually picking the exact judge you want to hear your case. I'm glad we came to an agreement.", ">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.", ">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank." ]

[ "It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.", ">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?", ">\n\nYes, absolutely.", ">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.", ">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.", ">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.", ">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.", ">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.", ">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.", ">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.", ">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.", ">\n\nI think what they is saying is that even though there are no single judge circuits, there are circuits in those states that are exclusively one ideology (or are very close to one). That is the same in practice as shopping a single judge circuit because your outcome is still guaranteed.", ">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.", ">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.", ">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!", ">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power", ">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.", ">\n\nLOL...my god.\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\nWell there you go. The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\nHave a nice day", ">\n\n\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\n\nYes, a panel that is 45% conservative is accurately described as a \"panel of liberal judges\". If you just ignore basic facts, you can paint whatever narrative you wish.\n\nThe problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\n\nYes, actually. You described the problem. You have to file a lawsuit in a federal court against the US government. Filing in a district where you may or may not draw a friendly judge is not the same thing as actually picking the exact judge you want to hear your case. I'm glad we came to an agreement.", ">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.", ">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.", ">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct." ]

[ "It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.", ">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?", ">\n\nYes, absolutely.", ">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.", ">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.", ">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.", ">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.", ">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.", ">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.", ">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.", ">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.", ">\n\nI think what they is saying is that even though there are no single judge circuits, there are circuits in those states that are exclusively one ideology (or are very close to one). That is the same in practice as shopping a single judge circuit because your outcome is still guaranteed.", ">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.", ">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.", ">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!", ">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power", ">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.", ">\n\nLOL...my god.\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\nWell there you go. The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\nHave a nice day", ">\n\n\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\n\nYes, a panel that is 45% conservative is accurately described as a \"panel of liberal judges\". If you just ignore basic facts, you can paint whatever narrative you wish.\n\nThe problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\n\nYes, actually. You described the problem. You have to file a lawsuit in a federal court against the US government. Filing in a district where you may or may not draw a friendly judge is not the same thing as actually picking the exact judge you want to hear your case. I'm glad we came to an agreement.", ">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.", ">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.", ">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.", ">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first." ]

[ "It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.", ">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?", ">\n\nYes, absolutely.", ">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.", ">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.", ">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.", ">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.", ">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.", ">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.", ">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.", ">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.", ">\n\nI think what they is saying is that even though there are no single judge circuits, there are circuits in those states that are exclusively one ideology (or are very close to one). That is the same in practice as shopping a single judge circuit because your outcome is still guaranteed.", ">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.", ">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.", ">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!", ">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power", ">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.", ">\n\nLOL...my god.\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\nWell there you go. The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\nHave a nice day", ">\n\n\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\n\nYes, a panel that is 45% conservative is accurately described as a \"panel of liberal judges\". If you just ignore basic facts, you can paint whatever narrative you wish.\n\nThe problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\n\nYes, actually. You described the problem. You have to file a lawsuit in a federal court against the US government. Filing in a district where you may or may not draw a friendly judge is not the same thing as actually picking the exact judge you want to hear your case. I'm glad we came to an agreement.", ">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.", ">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.", ">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.", ">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.", ">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case." ]

[ "It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.", ">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?", ">\n\nYes, absolutely.", ">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.", ">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.", ">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.", ">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.", ">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.", ">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.", ">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.", ">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.", ">\n\nI think what they is saying is that even though there are no single judge circuits, there are circuits in those states that are exclusively one ideology (or are very close to one). That is the same in practice as shopping a single judge circuit because your outcome is still guaranteed.", ">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.", ">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.", ">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!", ">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power", ">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.", ">\n\nLOL...my god.\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\nWell there you go. The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\nHave a nice day", ">\n\n\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\n\nYes, a panel that is 45% conservative is accurately described as a \"panel of liberal judges\". If you just ignore basic facts, you can paint whatever narrative you wish.\n\nThe problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\n\nYes, actually. You described the problem. You have to file a lawsuit in a federal court against the US government. Filing in a district where you may or may not draw a friendly judge is not the same thing as actually picking the exact judge you want to hear your case. I'm glad we came to an agreement.", ">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.", ">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.", ">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.", ">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.", ">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.", ">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?" ]

[ "It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.", ">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?", ">\n\nYes, absolutely.", ">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.", ">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.", ">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.", ">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.", ">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.", ">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.", ">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.", ">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.", ">\n\nI think what they is saying is that even though there are no single judge circuits, there are circuits in those states that are exclusively one ideology (or are very close to one). That is the same in practice as shopping a single judge circuit because your outcome is still guaranteed.", ">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.", ">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.", ">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!", ">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power", ">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.", ">\n\nLOL...my god.\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\nWell there you go. The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\nHave a nice day", ">\n\n\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\n\nYes, a panel that is 45% conservative is accurately described as a \"panel of liberal judges\". If you just ignore basic facts, you can paint whatever narrative you wish.\n\nThe problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\n\nYes, actually. You described the problem. You have to file a lawsuit in a federal court against the US government. Filing in a district where you may or may not draw a friendly judge is not the same thing as actually picking the exact judge you want to hear your case. I'm glad we came to an agreement.", ">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.", ">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.", ">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.", ">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.", ">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.", ">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?", ">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California)." ]

[ "It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.", ">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?", ">\n\nYes, absolutely.", ">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.", ">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.", ">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.", ">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.", ">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.", ">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.", ">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.", ">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.", ">\n\nI think what they is saying is that even though there are no single judge circuits, there are circuits in those states that are exclusively one ideology (or are very close to one). That is the same in practice as shopping a single judge circuit because your outcome is still guaranteed.", ">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.", ">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.", ">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!", ">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power", ">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.", ">\n\nLOL...my god.\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\nWell there you go. The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\nHave a nice day", ">\n\n\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\n\nYes, a panel that is 45% conservative is accurately described as a \"panel of liberal judges\". If you just ignore basic facts, you can paint whatever narrative you wish.\n\nThe problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\n\nYes, actually. You described the problem. You have to file a lawsuit in a federal court against the US government. Filing in a district where you may or may not draw a friendly judge is not the same thing as actually picking the exact judge you want to hear your case. I'm glad we came to an agreement.", ">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.", ">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.", ">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.", ">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.", ">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.", ">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?", ">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).", ">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge." ]

[ "It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.", ">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?", ">\n\nYes, absolutely.", ">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.", ">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.", ">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.", ">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.", ">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.", ">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.", ">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.", ">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.", ">\n\nI think what they is saying is that even though there are no single judge circuits, there are circuits in those states that are exclusively one ideology (or are very close to one). That is the same in practice as shopping a single judge circuit because your outcome is still guaranteed.", ">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.", ">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.", ">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!", ">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power", ">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.", ">\n\nLOL...my god.\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\nWell there you go. The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\nHave a nice day", ">\n\n\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\n\nYes, a panel that is 45% conservative is accurately described as a \"panel of liberal judges\". If you just ignore basic facts, you can paint whatever narrative you wish.\n\nThe problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\n\nYes, actually. You described the problem. You have to file a lawsuit in a federal court against the US government. Filing in a district where you may or may not draw a friendly judge is not the same thing as actually picking the exact judge you want to hear your case. I'm glad we came to an agreement.", ">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.", ">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.", ">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.", ">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.", ">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.", ">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?", ">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).", ">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.", ">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit." ]

[ "It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.", ">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?", ">\n\nYes, absolutely.", ">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.", ">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.", ">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.", ">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.", ">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.", ">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.", ">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.", ">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.", ">\n\nI think what they is saying is that even though there are no single judge circuits, there are circuits in those states that are exclusively one ideology (or are very close to one). That is the same in practice as shopping a single judge circuit because your outcome is still guaranteed.", ">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.", ">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.", ">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!", ">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power", ">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.", ">\n\nLOL...my god.\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\nWell there you go. The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\nHave a nice day", ">\n\n\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\n\nYes, a panel that is 45% conservative is accurately described as a \"panel of liberal judges\". If you just ignore basic facts, you can paint whatever narrative you wish.\n\nThe problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\n\nYes, actually. You described the problem. You have to file a lawsuit in a federal court against the US government. Filing in a district where you may or may not draw a friendly judge is not the same thing as actually picking the exact judge you want to hear your case. I'm glad we came to an agreement.", ">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.", ">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.", ">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.", ">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.", ">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.", ">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?", ">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).", ">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.", ">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.", ">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?" ]

[ "It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.", ">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?", ">\n\nYes, absolutely.", ">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.", ">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.", ">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.", ">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.", ">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.", ">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.", ">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.", ">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.", ">\n\nI think what they is saying is that even though there are no single judge circuits, there are circuits in those states that are exclusively one ideology (or are very close to one). That is the same in practice as shopping a single judge circuit because your outcome is still guaranteed.", ">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.", ">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.", ">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!", ">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power", ">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.", ">\n\nLOL...my god.\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\nWell there you go. The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\nHave a nice day", ">\n\n\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\n\nYes, a panel that is 45% conservative is accurately described as a \"panel of liberal judges\". If you just ignore basic facts, you can paint whatever narrative you wish.\n\nThe problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\n\nYes, actually. You described the problem. You have to file a lawsuit in a federal court against the US government. Filing in a district where you may or may not draw a friendly judge is not the same thing as actually picking the exact judge you want to hear your case. I'm glad we came to an agreement.", ">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.", ">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.", ">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.", ">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.", ">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.", ">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?", ">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).", ">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.", ">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.", ">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?", ">\n\nThere are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.\nAnd there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened. \nThat´s actually not a long list. \nThe US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.\nOrdinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.\nThe vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions." ]

[ "It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.", ">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?", ">\n\nYes, absolutely.", ">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.", ">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.", ">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.", ">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.", ">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.", ">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.", ">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.", ">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.", ">\n\nI think what they is saying is that even though there are no single judge circuits, there are circuits in those states that are exclusively one ideology (or are very close to one). That is the same in practice as shopping a single judge circuit because your outcome is still guaranteed.", ">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.", ">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.", ">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!", ">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power", ">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.", ">\n\nLOL...my god.\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\nWell there you go. The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\nHave a nice day", ">\n\n\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\n\nYes, a panel that is 45% conservative is accurately described as a \"panel of liberal judges\". If you just ignore basic facts, you can paint whatever narrative you wish.\n\nThe problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\n\nYes, actually. You described the problem. You have to file a lawsuit in a federal court against the US government. Filing in a district where you may or may not draw a friendly judge is not the same thing as actually picking the exact judge you want to hear your case. I'm glad we came to an agreement.", ">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.", ">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.", ">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.", ">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.", ">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.", ">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?", ">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).", ">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.", ">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.", ">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?", ">\n\nThere are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.\nAnd there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened. \nThat´s actually not a long list. \nThe US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.\nOrdinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.\nThe vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions.", ">\n\nThat what Trump was doing when he got the federal judge who lived across Florida to rule on his document case in Mar El Lago. The judge damaged her reputation by her rulings." ]

[ "It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.", ">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?", ">\n\nYes, absolutely.", ">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.", ">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.", ">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.", ">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.", ">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.", ">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.", ">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.", ">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.", ">\n\nI think what they is saying is that even though there are no single judge circuits, there are circuits in those states that are exclusively one ideology (or are very close to one). That is the same in practice as shopping a single judge circuit because your outcome is still guaranteed.", ">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.", ">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.", ">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!", ">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power", ">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.", ">\n\nLOL...my god.\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\nWell there you go. The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\nHave a nice day", ">\n\n\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\n\nYes, a panel that is 45% conservative is accurately described as a \"panel of liberal judges\". If you just ignore basic facts, you can paint whatever narrative you wish.\n\nThe problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\n\nYes, actually. You described the problem. You have to file a lawsuit in a federal court against the US government. Filing in a district where you may or may not draw a friendly judge is not the same thing as actually picking the exact judge you want to hear your case. I'm glad we came to an agreement.", ">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.", ">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.", ">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.", ">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.", ">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.", ">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?", ">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).", ">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.", ">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.", ">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?", ">\n\nThere are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.\nAnd there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened. \nThat´s actually not a long list. \nThe US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.\nOrdinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.\nThe vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions.", ">\n\nThat what Trump was doing when he got the federal judge who lived across Florida to rule on his document case in Mar El Lago. The judge damaged her reputation by her rulings.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion." ]

[ "It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.", ">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?", ">\n\nYes, absolutely.", ">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.", ">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.", ">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.", ">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.", ">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.", ">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.", ">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.", ">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.", ">\n\nI think what they is saying is that even though there are no single judge circuits, there are circuits in those states that are exclusively one ideology (or are very close to one). That is the same in practice as shopping a single judge circuit because your outcome is still guaranteed.", ">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.", ">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.", ">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!", ">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power", ">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.", ">\n\nLOL...my god.\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\nWell there you go. The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\nHave a nice day", ">\n\n\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\n\nYes, a panel that is 45% conservative is accurately described as a \"panel of liberal judges\". If you just ignore basic facts, you can paint whatever narrative you wish.\n\nThe problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\n\nYes, actually. You described the problem. You have to file a lawsuit in a federal court against the US government. Filing in a district where you may or may not draw a friendly judge is not the same thing as actually picking the exact judge you want to hear your case. I'm glad we came to an agreement.", ">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.", ">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.", ">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.", ">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.", ">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.", ">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?", ">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).", ">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.", ">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.", ">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?", ">\n\nThere are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.\nAnd there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened. \nThat´s actually not a long list. \nThe US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.\nOrdinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.\nThe vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions.", ">\n\nThat what Trump was doing when he got the federal judge who lived across Florida to rule on his document case in Mar El Lago. The judge damaged her reputation by her rulings.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nBad judges should face repercussions but nothing in the judicial system is just." ]

[ "It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.", ">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?", ">\n\nYes, absolutely.", ">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.", ">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.", ">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.", ">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.", ">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.", ">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.", ">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.", ">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.", ">\n\nI think what they is saying is that even though there are no single judge circuits, there are circuits in those states that are exclusively one ideology (or are very close to one). That is the same in practice as shopping a single judge circuit because your outcome is still guaranteed.", ">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.", ">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.", ">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!", ">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power", ">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.", ">\n\nLOL...my god.\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\nWell there you go. The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\nHave a nice day", ">\n\n\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\n\nYes, a panel that is 45% conservative is accurately described as a \"panel of liberal judges\". If you just ignore basic facts, you can paint whatever narrative you wish.\n\nThe problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\n\nYes, actually. You described the problem. You have to file a lawsuit in a federal court against the US government. Filing in a district where you may or may not draw a friendly judge is not the same thing as actually picking the exact judge you want to hear your case. I'm glad we came to an agreement.", ">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.", ">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.", ">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.", ">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.", ">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.", ">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?", ">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).", ">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.", ">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.", ">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?", ">\n\nThere are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.\nAnd there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened. \nThat´s actually not a long list. \nThe US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.\nOrdinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.\nThe vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions.", ">\n\nThat what Trump was doing when he got the federal judge who lived across Florida to rule on his document case in Mar El Lago. The judge damaged her reputation by her rulings.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nBad judges should face repercussions but nothing in the judicial system is just.", ">\n\nWhat is a bad judge? If they have sound legal reasoning (like the SCUTOS overturning Roe v Wade) are they bad judges because they didn't come to a desired outcome?\nPretty hard to call them bad judges if their legal reasoning is sound, do you have any evidence that they aren't making good legal rulings?" ]

[ "It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.", ">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?", ">\n\nYes, absolutely.", ">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.", ">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.", ">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.", ">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.", ">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.", ">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.", ">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.", ">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.", ">\n\nI think what they is saying is that even though there are no single judge circuits, there are circuits in those states that are exclusively one ideology (or are very close to one). That is the same in practice as shopping a single judge circuit because your outcome is still guaranteed.", ">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.", ">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.", ">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!", ">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power", ">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.", ">\n\nLOL...my god.\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\nWell there you go. The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\nHave a nice day", ">\n\n\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\n\nYes, a panel that is 45% conservative is accurately described as a \"panel of liberal judges\". If you just ignore basic facts, you can paint whatever narrative you wish.\n\nThe problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\n\nYes, actually. You described the problem. You have to file a lawsuit in a federal court against the US government. Filing in a district where you may or may not draw a friendly judge is not the same thing as actually picking the exact judge you want to hear your case. I'm glad we came to an agreement.", ">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.", ">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.", ">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.", ">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.", ">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.", ">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?", ">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).", ">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.", ">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.", ">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?", ">\n\nThere are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.\nAnd there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened. \nThat´s actually not a long list. \nThe US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.\nOrdinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.\nThe vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions.", ">\n\nThat what Trump was doing when he got the federal judge who lived across Florida to rule on his document case in Mar El Lago. The judge damaged her reputation by her rulings.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nBad judges should face repercussions but nothing in the judicial system is just.", ">\n\nWhat is a bad judge? If they have sound legal reasoning (like the SCUTOS overturning Roe v Wade) are they bad judges because they didn't come to a desired outcome?\nPretty hard to call them bad judges if their legal reasoning is sound, do you have any evidence that they aren't making good legal rulings?", ">\n\nIf you have 26 judges ruling one way and 1 judge ruling the other it seems obvious. \nRoe has sound reasoning and decades of legal precedent. I guess in your hot take all the other judges that ruled for it were bad judges. The right to medical privacy. Who wouldn’t deserve that? It’s a unilateral decision without sound judgement based on preference and not reasoning. There are not fifty shades of gray as you want but right and wrong. It is not complicated to then see who does and does not have sound judgement. I mean for a morally forthright person. Being morally ambiguous such as yourself I can see how understanding who is and is not making reasoned judgements could be complicated for you." ]

[ "It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.", ">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?", ">\n\nYes, absolutely.", ">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.", ">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.", ">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.", ">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.", ">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.", ">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.", ">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.", ">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.", ">\n\nI think what they is saying is that even though there are no single judge circuits, there are circuits in those states that are exclusively one ideology (or are very close to one). That is the same in practice as shopping a single judge circuit because your outcome is still guaranteed.", ">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.", ">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.", ">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!", ">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power", ">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.", ">\n\nLOL...my god.\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\nWell there you go. The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\nHave a nice day", ">\n\n\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\n\nYes, a panel that is 45% conservative is accurately described as a \"panel of liberal judges\". If you just ignore basic facts, you can paint whatever narrative you wish.\n\nThe problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\n\nYes, actually. You described the problem. You have to file a lawsuit in a federal court against the US government. Filing in a district where you may or may not draw a friendly judge is not the same thing as actually picking the exact judge you want to hear your case. I'm glad we came to an agreement.", ">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.", ">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.", ">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.", ">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.", ">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.", ">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?", ">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).", ">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.", ">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.", ">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?", ">\n\nThere are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.\nAnd there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened. \nThat´s actually not a long list. \nThe US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.\nOrdinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.\nThe vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions.", ">\n\nThat what Trump was doing when he got the federal judge who lived across Florida to rule on his document case in Mar El Lago. The judge damaged her reputation by her rulings.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nBad judges should face repercussions but nothing in the judicial system is just.", ">\n\nWhat is a bad judge? If they have sound legal reasoning (like the SCUTOS overturning Roe v Wade) are they bad judges because they didn't come to a desired outcome?\nPretty hard to call them bad judges if their legal reasoning is sound, do you have any evidence that they aren't making good legal rulings?", ">\n\nIf you have 26 judges ruling one way and 1 judge ruling the other it seems obvious. \nRoe has sound reasoning and decades of legal precedent. I guess in your hot take all the other judges that ruled for it were bad judges. The right to medical privacy. Who wouldn’t deserve that? It’s a unilateral decision without sound judgement based on preference and not reasoning. There are not fifty shades of gray as you want but right and wrong. It is not complicated to then see who does and does not have sound judgement. I mean for a morally forthright person. Being morally ambiguous such as yourself I can see how understanding who is and is not making reasoned judgements could be complicated for you.", ">\n\nRoe did not have sound reasoning. It was mocked in law schools, it was a HUGE talking point amongst legal scholars of always being in jeopardy because it was such a weak ruling.\n\"All the other judges\"...what other judges, only the SCOTUS ruled for it. Othe judges were required to use it as precedent, even if they completely disagreed with the ruling, that is how SCOTUS decisions work.\nIt didn't have a sound argument, you won't be able to make a sound argument to support it. Screaming precedent means nothing as the SCOTUS has overturned itself 236 times. 2% of their decisions are overturned. So lets not pretend like its some crazy thing that never happens.\nThe constitution cannot remove, nor protect the right to an abortion because in no way is the constitution able to determine what rights a fetus has. When the constitution cannot be used to determine a law, it is punted to the states to determine it themselves.\nEvery SCOTUS hearing this question came up because everyone knew the law could be overturned at any moment because it was bad law.\nIf you wish to say a judge is wrong, you need to make a solid legal argument. Those that claimed the Roe decision was bad made solid legal arguments for decades as to why it was bad law. Those complaining it was overturned aren't making legal arguments. They are screaming precedent, and saying \"but they said they wouldn't overturn it in their hearings\" (which they didn't actually say)" ]

[ "It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.", ">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?", ">\n\nYes, absolutely.", ">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.", ">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.", ">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.", ">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.", ">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.", ">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.", ">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.", ">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.", ">\n\nI think what they is saying is that even though there are no single judge circuits, there are circuits in those states that are exclusively one ideology (or are very close to one). That is the same in practice as shopping a single judge circuit because your outcome is still guaranteed.", ">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.", ">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.", ">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!", ">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power", ">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.", ">\n\nLOL...my god.\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\nWell there you go. The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\nHave a nice day", ">\n\n\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\n\nYes, a panel that is 45% conservative is accurately described as a \"panel of liberal judges\". If you just ignore basic facts, you can paint whatever narrative you wish.\n\nThe problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\n\nYes, actually. You described the problem. You have to file a lawsuit in a federal court against the US government. Filing in a district where you may or may not draw a friendly judge is not the same thing as actually picking the exact judge you want to hear your case. I'm glad we came to an agreement.", ">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.", ">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.", ">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.", ">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.", ">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.", ">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?", ">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).", ">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.", ">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.", ">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?", ">\n\nThere are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.\nAnd there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened. \nThat´s actually not a long list. \nThe US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.\nOrdinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.\nThe vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions.", ">\n\nThat what Trump was doing when he got the federal judge who lived across Florida to rule on his document case in Mar El Lago. The judge damaged her reputation by her rulings.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nBad judges should face repercussions but nothing in the judicial system is just.", ">\n\nWhat is a bad judge? If they have sound legal reasoning (like the SCUTOS overturning Roe v Wade) are they bad judges because they didn't come to a desired outcome?\nPretty hard to call them bad judges if their legal reasoning is sound, do you have any evidence that they aren't making good legal rulings?", ">\n\nIf you have 26 judges ruling one way and 1 judge ruling the other it seems obvious. \nRoe has sound reasoning and decades of legal precedent. I guess in your hot take all the other judges that ruled for it were bad judges. The right to medical privacy. Who wouldn’t deserve that? It’s a unilateral decision without sound judgement based on preference and not reasoning. There are not fifty shades of gray as you want but right and wrong. It is not complicated to then see who does and does not have sound judgement. I mean for a morally forthright person. Being morally ambiguous such as yourself I can see how understanding who is and is not making reasoned judgements could be complicated for you.", ">\n\nRoe did not have sound reasoning. It was mocked in law schools, it was a HUGE talking point amongst legal scholars of always being in jeopardy because it was such a weak ruling.\n\"All the other judges\"...what other judges, only the SCOTUS ruled for it. Othe judges were required to use it as precedent, even if they completely disagreed with the ruling, that is how SCOTUS decisions work.\nIt didn't have a sound argument, you won't be able to make a sound argument to support it. Screaming precedent means nothing as the SCOTUS has overturned itself 236 times. 2% of their decisions are overturned. So lets not pretend like its some crazy thing that never happens.\nThe constitution cannot remove, nor protect the right to an abortion because in no way is the constitution able to determine what rights a fetus has. When the constitution cannot be used to determine a law, it is punted to the states to determine it themselves.\nEvery SCOTUS hearing this question came up because everyone knew the law could be overturned at any moment because it was bad law.\nIf you wish to say a judge is wrong, you need to make a solid legal argument. Those that claimed the Roe decision was bad made solid legal arguments for decades as to why it was bad law. Those complaining it was overturned aren't making legal arguments. They are screaming precedent, and saying \"but they said they wouldn't overturn it in their hearings\" (which they didn't actually say)", ">\n\nTurn about is fair play? Republicans are always slow to adopt new tactics created by Dems. \nForce the Supreme court to be in session more of the year and raise more cases to the SCOTUS would probably be the ultra long term fix." ]

[ "It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.", ">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?", ">\n\nYes, absolutely.", ">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.", ">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.", ">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.", ">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.", ">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.", ">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.", ">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.", ">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.", ">\n\nI think what they is saying is that even though there are no single judge circuits, there are circuits in those states that are exclusively one ideology (or are very close to one). That is the same in practice as shopping a single judge circuit because your outcome is still guaranteed.", ">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.", ">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.", ">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!", ">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power", ">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.", ">\n\nLOL...my god.\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\nWell there you go. The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\nHave a nice day", ">\n\n\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\n\nYes, a panel that is 45% conservative is accurately described as a \"panel of liberal judges\". If you just ignore basic facts, you can paint whatever narrative you wish.\n\nThe problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\n\nYes, actually. You described the problem. You have to file a lawsuit in a federal court against the US government. Filing in a district where you may or may not draw a friendly judge is not the same thing as actually picking the exact judge you want to hear your case. I'm glad we came to an agreement.", ">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.", ">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.", ">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.", ">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.", ">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.", ">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?", ">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).", ">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.", ">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.", ">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?", ">\n\nThere are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.\nAnd there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened. \nThat´s actually not a long list. \nThe US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.\nOrdinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.\nThe vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions.", ">\n\nThat what Trump was doing when he got the federal judge who lived across Florida to rule on his document case in Mar El Lago. The judge damaged her reputation by her rulings.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nBad judges should face repercussions but nothing in the judicial system is just.", ">\n\nWhat is a bad judge? If they have sound legal reasoning (like the SCUTOS overturning Roe v Wade) are they bad judges because they didn't come to a desired outcome?\nPretty hard to call them bad judges if their legal reasoning is sound, do you have any evidence that they aren't making good legal rulings?", ">\n\nIf you have 26 judges ruling one way and 1 judge ruling the other it seems obvious. \nRoe has sound reasoning and decades of legal precedent. I guess in your hot take all the other judges that ruled for it were bad judges. The right to medical privacy. Who wouldn’t deserve that? It’s a unilateral decision without sound judgement based on preference and not reasoning. There are not fifty shades of gray as you want but right and wrong. It is not complicated to then see who does and does not have sound judgement. I mean for a morally forthright person. Being morally ambiguous such as yourself I can see how understanding who is and is not making reasoned judgements could be complicated for you.", ">\n\nRoe did not have sound reasoning. It was mocked in law schools, it was a HUGE talking point amongst legal scholars of always being in jeopardy because it was such a weak ruling.\n\"All the other judges\"...what other judges, only the SCOTUS ruled for it. Othe judges were required to use it as precedent, even if they completely disagreed with the ruling, that is how SCOTUS decisions work.\nIt didn't have a sound argument, you won't be able to make a sound argument to support it. Screaming precedent means nothing as the SCOTUS has overturned itself 236 times. 2% of their decisions are overturned. So lets not pretend like its some crazy thing that never happens.\nThe constitution cannot remove, nor protect the right to an abortion because in no way is the constitution able to determine what rights a fetus has. When the constitution cannot be used to determine a law, it is punted to the states to determine it themselves.\nEvery SCOTUS hearing this question came up because everyone knew the law could be overturned at any moment because it was bad law.\nIf you wish to say a judge is wrong, you need to make a solid legal argument. Those that claimed the Roe decision was bad made solid legal arguments for decades as to why it was bad law. Those complaining it was overturned aren't making legal arguments. They are screaming precedent, and saying \"but they said they wouldn't overturn it in their hearings\" (which they didn't actually say)", ">\n\nTurn about is fair play? Republicans are always slow to adopt new tactics created by Dems. \nForce the Supreme court to be in session more of the year and raise more cases to the SCOTUS would probably be the ultra long term fix.", ">\n\nJust make it illegal ¯\\(ツ)/¯ Why is every question like this treating these situations like it's rocket science. It's not that hard." ]

[ "It’s a problem. Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you. There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season.", ">\n\nWould an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge?", ">\n\nYes, absolutely.", ">\n\nNot sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court.", ">\n\nThere's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government. It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not \"districts\", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.\nThat or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits.", ">\n\nTo give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the \"general court\" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.\nEach of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.\nEdit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights.", ">\n\nYeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate \"administrative court\" that checks the executive; the US has \"administrative law judges\" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic \"we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing\" mentality.\nUS should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents.", ">\n\nThis seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts. The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.\nSo variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis. Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.\nIdeally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned. With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.\nAlso, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all.", ">\n\n\nsomething best dealt with through appeals processes\n\nOne of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.\nThat's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place.", ">\n\nMore judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.\nThe Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nMaybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state.", ">\n\nThose 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court.", ">\n\nI think what they is saying is that even though there are no single judge circuits, there are circuits in those states that are exclusively one ideology (or are very close to one). That is the same in practice as shopping a single judge circuit because your outcome is still guaranteed.", ">\n\nAll I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.\nCall it the \"Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!\" act.", ">\n\nVenue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.\n\nYou can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides.", ">\n\n\nbut could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president. \n\nYou mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years? \nI think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already.", ">\n\nHow dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used. totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they!", ">\n\nThis intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power", ">\n\nPlease provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.\nA lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.\nSo please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing.", ">\n\nLOL...my god.\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\nWell there you go. The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\nHave a nice day", ">\n\n\nSo to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the \"problem\" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.\n\nYes, a panel that is 45% conservative is accurately described as a \"panel of liberal judges\". If you just ignore basic facts, you can paint whatever narrative you wish.\n\nThe problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.\n\nYes, actually. You described the problem. You have to file a lawsuit in a federal court against the US government. Filing in a district where you may or may not draw a friendly judge is not the same thing as actually picking the exact judge you want to hear your case. I'm glad we came to an agreement.", ">\n\nI think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. \nIf a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. \nShopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is.", ">\n\nThere is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith. Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\n\nDemocrats against a future Republican president\n\nI sincerely doubt we will ever see Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank.", ">\n\nI am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct.", ">\n\nLol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first.", ">\n\nI've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.\nDemocrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. \nThe closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case.", ">\n\nThis is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the \"blue slip\". If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power?", ">\n\nEspecially when Republicans have already killed it.\n\nIn October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.\nIn February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California).", ">\n\n\nOver half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.\n\nI am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge.", ">\n\nJust think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit.", ">\n\n\nThis process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president\n\nIn the future? They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency. Why are we acting like this is a new tactic?", ">\n\nThere are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.\nAnd there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened. \nThat´s actually not a long list. \nThe US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.\nOrdinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.\nThe vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions.", ">\n\nThat what Trump was doing when he got the federal judge who lived across Florida to rule on his document case in Mar El Lago. The judge damaged her reputation by her rulings.", ">\n\nDo not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.", ">\n\nBad judges should face repercussions but nothing in the judicial system is just.", ">\n\nWhat is a bad judge? If they have sound legal reasoning (like the SCUTOS overturning Roe v Wade) are they bad judges because they didn't come to a desired outcome?\nPretty hard to call them bad judges if their legal reasoning is sound, do you have any evidence that they aren't making good legal rulings?", ">\n\nIf you have 26 judges ruling one way and 1 judge ruling the other it seems obvious. \nRoe has sound reasoning and decades of legal precedent. I guess in your hot take all the other judges that ruled for it were bad judges. The right to medical privacy. Who wouldn’t deserve that? It’s a unilateral decision without sound judgement based on preference and not reasoning. There are not fifty shades of gray as you want but right and wrong. It is not complicated to then see who does and does not have sound judgement. I mean for a morally forthright person. Being morally ambiguous such as yourself I can see how understanding who is and is not making reasoned judgements could be complicated for you.", ">\n\nRoe did not have sound reasoning. It was mocked in law schools, it was a HUGE talking point amongst legal scholars of always being in jeopardy because it was such a weak ruling.\n\"All the other judges\"...what other judges, only the SCOTUS ruled for it. Othe judges were required to use it as precedent, even if they completely disagreed with the ruling, that is how SCOTUS decisions work.\nIt didn't have a sound argument, you won't be able to make a sound argument to support it. Screaming precedent means nothing as the SCOTUS has overturned itself 236 times. 2% of their decisions are overturned. So lets not pretend like its some crazy thing that never happens.\nThe constitution cannot remove, nor protect the right to an abortion because in no way is the constitution able to determine what rights a fetus has. When the constitution cannot be used to determine a law, it is punted to the states to determine it themselves.\nEvery SCOTUS hearing this question came up because everyone knew the law could be overturned at any moment because it was bad law.\nIf you wish to say a judge is wrong, you need to make a solid legal argument. Those that claimed the Roe decision was bad made solid legal arguments for decades as to why it was bad law. Those complaining it was overturned aren't making legal arguments. They are screaming precedent, and saying \"but they said they wouldn't overturn it in their hearings\" (which they didn't actually say)", ">\n\nTurn about is fair play? Republicans are always slow to adopt new tactics created by Dems. \nForce the Supreme court to be in session more of the year and raise more cases to the SCOTUS would probably be the ultra long term fix.", ">\n\nJust make it illegal ¯\\(ツ)/¯ Why is every question like this treating these situations like it's rocket science. It's not that hard.", ">\n\nSounds about right, do this to Trump a plethora of times then make it illegal to do against Biden. I'm sure that will play out well" ]

[]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans." ]

[]

[ "“200 men between 18 and 74” like… could we get a vaguer pool?\nI get it, it’s funny, and they should do one on men who buy huge trucks, but like. This is silly." ]

[ "“200 men between 18 and 74” like… could we get a vaguer pool?\nI get it, it’s funny, and they should do one on men who buy huge trucks, but like. This is silly.", ">\n\nJust curious…do you drive a sports car?" ]

[ "“200 men between 18 and 74” like… could we get a vaguer pool?\nI get it, it’s funny, and they should do one on men who buy huge trucks, but like. This is silly.", ">\n\nJust curious…do you drive a sports car?", ">\n\nNo, but he really, reallllly desires them..." ]

[ "“200 men between 18 and 74” like… could we get a vaguer pool?\nI get it, it’s funny, and they should do one on men who buy huge trucks, but like. This is silly.", ">\n\nJust curious…do you drive a sports car?", ">\n\nNo, but he really, reallllly desires them...", ">\n\n& yet every male pornstar in LA drives a sportscar" ]

[ "“200 men between 18 and 74” like… could we get a vaguer pool?\nI get it, it’s funny, and they should do one on men who buy huge trucks, but like. This is silly.", ">\n\nJust curious…do you drive a sports car?", ">\n\nNo, but he really, reallllly desires them...", ">\n\n& yet every male pornstar in LA drives a sportscar", ">\n\nWhy do you know so much about what LA male porn stars drive?" ]

[ "“200 men between 18 and 74” like… could we get a vaguer pool?\nI get it, it’s funny, and they should do one on men who buy huge trucks, but like. This is silly.", ">\n\nJust curious…do you drive a sports car?", ">\n\nNo, but he really, reallllly desires them...", ">\n\n& yet every male pornstar in LA drives a sportscar", ">\n\nWhy do you know so much about what LA male porn stars drive?", ">\n\nYou here that ladies, guys with regular card have bigger dicks." ]

[ "“200 men between 18 and 74” like… could we get a vaguer pool?\nI get it, it’s funny, and they should do one on men who buy huge trucks, but like. This is silly.", ">\n\nJust curious…do you drive a sports car?", ">\n\nNo, but he really, reallllly desires them...", ">\n\n& yet every male pornstar in LA drives a sportscar", ">\n\nWhy do you know so much about what LA male porn stars drive?", ">\n\nYou here that ladies, guys with regular card have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nThey think they have bigger dicks." ]

[ "“200 men between 18 and 74” like… could we get a vaguer pool?\nI get it, it’s funny, and they should do one on men who buy huge trucks, but like. This is silly.", ">\n\nJust curious…do you drive a sports car?", ">\n\nNo, but he really, reallllly desires them...", ">\n\n& yet every male pornstar in LA drives a sportscar", ">\n\nWhy do you know so much about what LA male porn stars drive?", ">\n\nYou here that ladies, guys with regular card have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nThey think they have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nYou must be a sports car guy" ]

[ "“200 men between 18 and 74” like… could we get a vaguer pool?\nI get it, it’s funny, and they should do one on men who buy huge trucks, but like. This is silly.", ">\n\nJust curious…do you drive a sports car?", ">\n\nNo, but he really, reallllly desires them...", ">\n\n& yet every male pornstar in LA drives a sportscar", ">\n\nWhy do you know so much about what LA male porn stars drive?", ">\n\nYou here that ladies, guys with regular card have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nThey think they have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nYou must be a sports car guy", ">\n\nI don't know too many men who WOULDN'T want a sports car regardless of penis size.\nMy question is do short dicked men prefer a sports car or a lifted truck?" ]

[ "“200 men between 18 and 74” like… could we get a vaguer pool?\nI get it, it’s funny, and they should do one on men who buy huge trucks, but like. This is silly.", ">\n\nJust curious…do you drive a sports car?", ">\n\nNo, but he really, reallllly desires them...", ">\n\n& yet every male pornstar in LA drives a sportscar", ">\n\nWhy do you know so much about what LA male porn stars drive?", ">\n\nYou here that ladies, guys with regular card have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nThey think they have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nYou must be a sports car guy", ">\n\nI don't know too many men who WOULDN'T want a sports car regardless of penis size.\nMy question is do short dicked men prefer a sports car or a lifted truck?", ">\n\n\nMy question is do short dicked men prefer a sports car or a lifted truck? \n\nWhichever one has brighter LED headlights." ]

[ "“200 men between 18 and 74” like… could we get a vaguer pool?\nI get it, it’s funny, and they should do one on men who buy huge trucks, but like. This is silly.", ">\n\nJust curious…do you drive a sports car?", ">\n\nNo, but he really, reallllly desires them...", ">\n\n& yet every male pornstar in LA drives a sportscar", ">\n\nWhy do you know so much about what LA male porn stars drive?", ">\n\nYou here that ladies, guys with regular card have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nThey think they have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nYou must be a sports car guy", ">\n\nI don't know too many men who WOULDN'T want a sports car regardless of penis size.\nMy question is do short dicked men prefer a sports car or a lifted truck?", ">\n\n\nMy question is do short dicked men prefer a sports car or a lifted truck? \n\nWhichever one has brighter LED headlights.", ">\n\nYou have to whack 'em out of alignment to get noticed." ]

[ "“200 men between 18 and 74” like… could we get a vaguer pool?\nI get it, it’s funny, and they should do one on men who buy huge trucks, but like. This is silly.", ">\n\nJust curious…do you drive a sports car?", ">\n\nNo, but he really, reallllly desires them...", ">\n\n& yet every male pornstar in LA drives a sportscar", ">\n\nWhy do you know so much about what LA male porn stars drive?", ">\n\nYou here that ladies, guys with regular card have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nThey think they have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nYou must be a sports car guy", ">\n\nI don't know too many men who WOULDN'T want a sports car regardless of penis size.\nMy question is do short dicked men prefer a sports car or a lifted truck?", ">\n\n\nMy question is do short dicked men prefer a sports car or a lifted truck? \n\nWhichever one has brighter LED headlights.", ">\n\nYou have to whack 'em out of alignment to get noticed.", ">\n\nI’m in a 2-door Yaris, is all I’m sayin’" ]

[ "“200 men between 18 and 74” like… could we get a vaguer pool?\nI get it, it’s funny, and they should do one on men who buy huge trucks, but like. This is silly.", ">\n\nJust curious…do you drive a sports car?", ">\n\nNo, but he really, reallllly desires them...", ">\n\n& yet every male pornstar in LA drives a sportscar", ">\n\nWhy do you know so much about what LA male porn stars drive?", ">\n\nYou here that ladies, guys with regular card have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nThey think they have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nYou must be a sports car guy", ">\n\nI don't know too many men who WOULDN'T want a sports car regardless of penis size.\nMy question is do short dicked men prefer a sports car or a lifted truck?", ">\n\n\nMy question is do short dicked men prefer a sports car or a lifted truck? \n\nWhichever one has brighter LED headlights.", ">\n\nYou have to whack 'em out of alignment to get noticed.", ">\n\nI’m in a 2-door Yaris, is all I’m sayin’", ">\n\nRS model?" ]

[ "“200 men between 18 and 74” like… could we get a vaguer pool?\nI get it, it’s funny, and they should do one on men who buy huge trucks, but like. This is silly.", ">\n\nJust curious…do you drive a sports car?", ">\n\nNo, but he really, reallllly desires them...", ">\n\n& yet every male pornstar in LA drives a sportscar", ">\n\nWhy do you know so much about what LA male porn stars drive?", ">\n\nYou here that ladies, guys with regular card have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nThey think they have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nYou must be a sports car guy", ">\n\nI don't know too many men who WOULDN'T want a sports car regardless of penis size.\nMy question is do short dicked men prefer a sports car or a lifted truck?", ">\n\n\nMy question is do short dicked men prefer a sports car or a lifted truck? \n\nWhichever one has brighter LED headlights.", ">\n\nYou have to whack 'em out of alignment to get noticed.", ">\n\nI’m in a 2-door Yaris, is all I’m sayin’", ">\n\nRS model?", ">\n\nThey tried to replicate the study with LED headlights but couldn't figure out how to divide by zero." ]

[ "“200 men between 18 and 74” like… could we get a vaguer pool?\nI get it, it’s funny, and they should do one on men who buy huge trucks, but like. This is silly.", ">\n\nJust curious…do you drive a sports car?", ">\n\nNo, but he really, reallllly desires them...", ">\n\n& yet every male pornstar in LA drives a sportscar", ">\n\nWhy do you know so much about what LA male porn stars drive?", ">\n\nYou here that ladies, guys with regular card have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nThey think they have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nYou must be a sports car guy", ">\n\nI don't know too many men who WOULDN'T want a sports car regardless of penis size.\nMy question is do short dicked men prefer a sports car or a lifted truck?", ">\n\n\nMy question is do short dicked men prefer a sports car or a lifted truck? \n\nWhichever one has brighter LED headlights.", ">\n\nYou have to whack 'em out of alignment to get noticed.", ">\n\nI’m in a 2-door Yaris, is all I’m sayin’", ">\n\nRS model?", ">\n\nThey tried to replicate the study with LED headlights but couldn't figure out how to divide by zero.", ">\n\nIt’s becoming hard to buy a new car without LED headlights. They’re replacing halogens as the new norm." ]

[ "“200 men between 18 and 74” like… could we get a vaguer pool?\nI get it, it’s funny, and they should do one on men who buy huge trucks, but like. This is silly.", ">\n\nJust curious…do you drive a sports car?", ">\n\nNo, but he really, reallllly desires them...", ">\n\n& yet every male pornstar in LA drives a sportscar", ">\n\nWhy do you know so much about what LA male porn stars drive?", ">\n\nYou here that ladies, guys with regular card have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nThey think they have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nYou must be a sports car guy", ">\n\nI don't know too many men who WOULDN'T want a sports car regardless of penis size.\nMy question is do short dicked men prefer a sports car or a lifted truck?", ">\n\n\nMy question is do short dicked men prefer a sports car or a lifted truck? \n\nWhichever one has brighter LED headlights.", ">\n\nYou have to whack 'em out of alignment to get noticed.", ">\n\nI’m in a 2-door Yaris, is all I’m sayin’", ">\n\nRS model?", ">\n\nThey tried to replicate the study with LED headlights but couldn't figure out how to divide by zero.", ">\n\nIt’s becoming hard to buy a new car without LED headlights. They’re replacing halogens as the new norm.", ">\n\nI hope this study wins an Ig Nobel Prize." ]

[ "“200 men between 18 and 74” like… could we get a vaguer pool?\nI get it, it’s funny, and they should do one on men who buy huge trucks, but like. This is silly.", ">\n\nJust curious…do you drive a sports car?", ">\n\nNo, but he really, reallllly desires them...", ">\n\n& yet every male pornstar in LA drives a sportscar", ">\n\nWhy do you know so much about what LA male porn stars drive?", ">\n\nYou here that ladies, guys with regular card have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nThey think they have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nYou must be a sports car guy", ">\n\nI don't know too many men who WOULDN'T want a sports car regardless of penis size.\nMy question is do short dicked men prefer a sports car or a lifted truck?", ">\n\n\nMy question is do short dicked men prefer a sports car or a lifted truck? \n\nWhichever one has brighter LED headlights.", ">\n\nYou have to whack 'em out of alignment to get noticed.", ">\n\nI’m in a 2-door Yaris, is all I’m sayin’", ">\n\nRS model?", ">\n\nThey tried to replicate the study with LED headlights but couldn't figure out how to divide by zero.", ">\n\nIt’s becoming hard to buy a new car without LED headlights. They’re replacing halogens as the new norm.", ">\n\nI hope this study wins an Ig Nobel Prize.", ">\n\nI agree, guys with things I'm envious of must have a small penis, it's science.." ]

[ "“200 men between 18 and 74” like… could we get a vaguer pool?\nI get it, it’s funny, and they should do one on men who buy huge trucks, but like. This is silly.", ">\n\nJust curious…do you drive a sports car?", ">\n\nNo, but he really, reallllly desires them...", ">\n\n& yet every male pornstar in LA drives a sportscar", ">\n\nWhy do you know so much about what LA male porn stars drive?", ">\n\nYou here that ladies, guys with regular card have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nThey think they have bigger dicks.", ">\n\nYou must be a sports car guy", ">\n\nI don't know too many men who WOULDN'T want a sports car regardless of penis size.\nMy question is do short dicked men prefer a sports car or a lifted truck?", ">\n\n\nMy question is do short dicked men prefer a sports car or a lifted truck? \n\nWhichever one has brighter LED headlights.", ">\n\nYou have to whack 'em out of alignment to get noticed.", ">\n\nI’m in a 2-door Yaris, is all I’m sayin’", ">\n\nRS model?", ">\n\nThey tried to replicate the study with LED headlights but couldn't figure out how to divide by zero.", ">\n\nIt’s becoming hard to buy a new car without LED headlights. They’re replacing halogens as the new norm.", ">\n\nI hope this study wins an Ig Nobel Prize.", ">\n\nI agree, guys with things I'm envious of must have a small penis, it's science..", ">\n\nThat's why I drive a minivan." ]

[]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !" ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?" ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…" ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things" ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡" ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!" ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly)." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!" ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys" ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?" ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex" ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?" ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work" ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work", ">\n\nJerrySeinfeldThatsAShame.gif" ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work", ">\n\nJerrySeinfeldThatsAShame.gif", ">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work", ">\n\nJerrySeinfeldThatsAShame.gif", ">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.", ">\n\nExactly my thoughts" ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work", ">\n\nJerrySeinfeldThatsAShame.gif", ">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.", ">\n\nExactly my thoughts", ">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work", ">\n\nJerrySeinfeldThatsAShame.gif", ">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.", ">\n\nExactly my thoughts", ">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.", ">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work", ">\n\nJerrySeinfeldThatsAShame.gif", ">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.", ">\n\nExactly my thoughts", ">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.", ">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.", ">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there" ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work", ">\n\nJerrySeinfeldThatsAShame.gif", ">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.", ">\n\nExactly my thoughts", ">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.", ">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.", ">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there", ">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?" ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work", ">\n\nJerrySeinfeldThatsAShame.gif", ">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.", ">\n\nExactly my thoughts", ">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.", ">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.", ">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there", ">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?", ">\n\nIt's frustrating how often cyclists get yelled at for doing stuff that's completely legal and actually makes traffic smoother for everyone." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work", ">\n\nJerrySeinfeldThatsAShame.gif", ">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.", ">\n\nExactly my thoughts", ">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.", ">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.", ">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there", ">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?", ">\n\nIt's frustrating how often cyclists get yelled at for doing stuff that's completely legal and actually makes traffic smoother for everyone.", ">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good" ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work", ">\n\nJerrySeinfeldThatsAShame.gif", ">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.", ">\n\nExactly my thoughts", ">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.", ">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.", ">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there", ">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?", ">\n\nIt's frustrating how often cyclists get yelled at for doing stuff that's completely legal and actually makes traffic smoother for everyone.", ">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good", ">\n\nJust don't be doing tricks on a stairway leading to the road and you're good!" ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work", ">\n\nJerrySeinfeldThatsAShame.gif", ">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.", ">\n\nExactly my thoughts", ">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.", ">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.", ">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there", ">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?", ">\n\nIt's frustrating how often cyclists get yelled at for doing stuff that's completely legal and actually makes traffic smoother for everyone.", ">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good", ">\n\nJust don't be doing tricks on a stairway leading to the road and you're good!", ">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work", ">\n\nJerrySeinfeldThatsAShame.gif", ">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.", ">\n\nExactly my thoughts", ">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.", ">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.", ">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there", ">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?", ">\n\nIt's frustrating how often cyclists get yelled at for doing stuff that's completely legal and actually makes traffic smoother for everyone.", ">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good", ">\n\nJust don't be doing tricks on a stairway leading to the road and you're good!", ">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.", ">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work", ">\n\nJerrySeinfeldThatsAShame.gif", ">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.", ">\n\nExactly my thoughts", ">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.", ">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.", ">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there", ">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?", ">\n\nIt's frustrating how often cyclists get yelled at for doing stuff that's completely legal and actually makes traffic smoother for everyone.", ">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good", ">\n\nJust don't be doing tricks on a stairway leading to the road and you're good!", ">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.", ">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.", ">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work", ">\n\nJerrySeinfeldThatsAShame.gif", ">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.", ">\n\nExactly my thoughts", ">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.", ">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.", ">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there", ">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?", ">\n\nIt's frustrating how often cyclists get yelled at for doing stuff that's completely legal and actually makes traffic smoother for everyone.", ">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good", ">\n\nJust don't be doing tricks on a stairway leading to the road and you're good!", ">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.", ">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.", ">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.", ">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work", ">\n\nJerrySeinfeldThatsAShame.gif", ">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.", ">\n\nExactly my thoughts", ">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.", ">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.", ">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there", ">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?", ">\n\nIt's frustrating how often cyclists get yelled at for doing stuff that's completely legal and actually makes traffic smoother for everyone.", ">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good", ">\n\nJust don't be doing tricks on a stairway leading to the road and you're good!", ">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.", ">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.", ">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.", ">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.", ">\n\nFalse" ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work", ">\n\nJerrySeinfeldThatsAShame.gif", ">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.", ">\n\nExactly my thoughts", ">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.", ">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.", ">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there", ">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?", ">\n\nIt's frustrating how often cyclists get yelled at for doing stuff that's completely legal and actually makes traffic smoother for everyone.", ">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good", ">\n\nJust don't be doing tricks on a stairway leading to the road and you're good!", ">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.", ">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.", ">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.", ">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.", ">\n\nFalse", ">\n\nas a cyclist I hate everyone" ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work", ">\n\nJerrySeinfeldThatsAShame.gif", ">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.", ">\n\nExactly my thoughts", ">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.", ">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.", ">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there", ">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?", ">\n\nIt's frustrating how often cyclists get yelled at for doing stuff that's completely legal and actually makes traffic smoother for everyone.", ">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good", ">\n\nJust don't be doing tricks on a stairway leading to the road and you're good!", ">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.", ">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.", ">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.", ">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.", ">\n\nFalse", ">\n\nas a cyclist I hate everyone", ">\n\nSame, I see posts like this where people tell us to ride on the sidewalk when it’s illegal. \nThey assume we don’t walk anywhere, drive, etc like we are essentially subhuman for doing exercise.\nThey tell us to ride closer to the right side of the road so we get hit by a car door. \nThey’re mad that we give a verbal signal that we’re coming up on the left even though that’s the law. \nnow that I’m in Colorado I’m getting yelled at for the Idaho stop, which is completely legal. We yield to stop signs and temporarily stop at red light only till it’s clear. It’s all to REDUCE CAR TRAFFIC.\nSo far I’ve had family members die from hit and runs and drunk drivers, but somehow cyclists are the most dangerous thing on the road today.\nWhat is this really about?" ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work", ">\n\nJerrySeinfeldThatsAShame.gif", ">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.", ">\n\nExactly my thoughts", ">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.", ">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.", ">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there", ">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?", ">\n\nIt's frustrating how often cyclists get yelled at for doing stuff that's completely legal and actually makes traffic smoother for everyone.", ">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good", ">\n\nJust don't be doing tricks on a stairway leading to the road and you're good!", ">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.", ">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.", ">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.", ">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.", ">\n\nFalse", ">\n\nas a cyclist I hate everyone", ">\n\nSame, I see posts like this where people tell us to ride on the sidewalk when it’s illegal. \nThey assume we don’t walk anywhere, drive, etc like we are essentially subhuman for doing exercise.\nThey tell us to ride closer to the right side of the road so we get hit by a car door. \nThey’re mad that we give a verbal signal that we’re coming up on the left even though that’s the law. \nnow that I’m in Colorado I’m getting yelled at for the Idaho stop, which is completely legal. We yield to stop signs and temporarily stop at red light only till it’s clear. It’s all to REDUCE CAR TRAFFIC.\nSo far I’ve had family members die from hit and runs and drunk drivers, but somehow cyclists are the most dangerous thing on the road today.\nWhat is this really about?", ">\n\nIt's probably posted by a car driver who only walks recreationally." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work", ">\n\nJerrySeinfeldThatsAShame.gif", ">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.", ">\n\nExactly my thoughts", ">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.", ">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.", ">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there", ">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?", ">\n\nIt's frustrating how often cyclists get yelled at for doing stuff that's completely legal and actually makes traffic smoother for everyone.", ">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good", ">\n\nJust don't be doing tricks on a stairway leading to the road and you're good!", ">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.", ">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.", ">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.", ">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.", ">\n\nFalse", ">\n\nas a cyclist I hate everyone", ">\n\nSame, I see posts like this where people tell us to ride on the sidewalk when it’s illegal. \nThey assume we don’t walk anywhere, drive, etc like we are essentially subhuman for doing exercise.\nThey tell us to ride closer to the right side of the road so we get hit by a car door. \nThey’re mad that we give a verbal signal that we’re coming up on the left even though that’s the law. \nnow that I’m in Colorado I’m getting yelled at for the Idaho stop, which is completely legal. We yield to stop signs and temporarily stop at red light only till it’s clear. It’s all to REDUCE CAR TRAFFIC.\nSo far I’ve had family members die from hit and runs and drunk drivers, but somehow cyclists are the most dangerous thing on the road today.\nWhat is this really about?", ">\n\nIt's probably posted by a car driver who only walks recreationally.", ">\n\nIt is regrettable that a handful of asshole cyclists ruins everyone’s opinion of us. It really undermines the support needed to improve infrastructure for cycling. \nIf it is any help, when i ring my bell, I am doing so to avoid the alternatives of either yelling a warning or startling people. I normally exit the path and pass on the grass. I would say that most cyclist are the same. I don’t want you to get out of the way, I want you to know I am there. \nBut it only takes a couple assholes that think they own the path or the street. I have a cousin like this and it is difficult to convince him his is wrong and is putting himself and others in danger." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work", ">\n\nJerrySeinfeldThatsAShame.gif", ">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.", ">\n\nExactly my thoughts", ">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.", ">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.", ">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there", ">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?", ">\n\nIt's frustrating how often cyclists get yelled at for doing stuff that's completely legal and actually makes traffic smoother for everyone.", ">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good", ">\n\nJust don't be doing tricks on a stairway leading to the road and you're good!", ">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.", ">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.", ">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.", ">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.", ">\n\nFalse", ">\n\nas a cyclist I hate everyone", ">\n\nSame, I see posts like this where people tell us to ride on the sidewalk when it’s illegal. \nThey assume we don’t walk anywhere, drive, etc like we are essentially subhuman for doing exercise.\nThey tell us to ride closer to the right side of the road so we get hit by a car door. \nThey’re mad that we give a verbal signal that we’re coming up on the left even though that’s the law. \nnow that I’m in Colorado I’m getting yelled at for the Idaho stop, which is completely legal. We yield to stop signs and temporarily stop at red light only till it’s clear. It’s all to REDUCE CAR TRAFFIC.\nSo far I’ve had family members die from hit and runs and drunk drivers, but somehow cyclists are the most dangerous thing on the road today.\nWhat is this really about?", ">\n\nIt's probably posted by a car driver who only walks recreationally.", ">\n\nIt is regrettable that a handful of asshole cyclists ruins everyone’s opinion of us. It really undermines the support needed to improve infrastructure for cycling. \nIf it is any help, when i ring my bell, I am doing so to avoid the alternatives of either yelling a warning or startling people. I normally exit the path and pass on the grass. I would say that most cyclist are the same. I don’t want you to get out of the way, I want you to know I am there. \nBut it only takes a couple assholes that think they own the path or the street. I have a cousin like this and it is difficult to convince him his is wrong and is putting himself and others in danger.", ">\n\nI think the a-holes are people that are only on a bike because it's the easiest thing for them, living where they do. You and those like you are on the bike because you love cycling." ]

[ "I’ve nothing against cyclists as a group. I prefer to hate all people who do stupid things whether they’re in cars, on bikes or walking. Went to pick my daughter up tonight and counted six cyclists in the dark wearing all black with no lights at all plus one with a light so weak I didn’t see it until I was nearly past him. Tonight it was dumb cyclists, but tomorrow it might be idiots in cars. Hate the idiots not the method of transportation.", ">\n\nTrue !", ">\n\nAs a cyclist in one of the most bike-dense cities in the world, I hate cyclists too. If I could avoid getting myself hurt, I’d be ramming at least ten of them a day just to teach a lesson about ignoring rules and common sense.", ">\n\nAmsterdam? Copenhagen?", ">\n\nCopenhagen. It’s a wonderful bike city but the people are incredibly self-centered.", ">\n\nI had high expectations from cyclists when I first visited the city, after all it is heralded as a cycling paradise and, well, let’s say it looked a lot more like the rest of the world and mainly because of the personal behavior of cyclists.\nMy local friend justified it, stating that it’s because danish are more temperamental than all other Scandinavians: an explanation that I really didn’t know what to do with…", ">\n\nIf “temperamental” means “a bunch of egotistical [insert unflattering body part]”, he’s right.", ">\n\nYou make it sound like a war zone. I live in Copenhagen and most of the time biking around the city is very pleasant. Except for the food delivery scooters, they can 🤬 off.", ">\n\nI guess it depends on how often and where you’re going. If you have places to be each and every day and want to get there effectively, people ignoring general rules and courtesies of the road are a pain. If you’re one of the types listening to podcasts with a latte in one hand and a phone in the other just trudging along, it’s probably fine.", ">\n\nI road cycled for years, I always followed the street rules. Always. Red light means red light. \nI have so many cycling friends who get into accidents and other conflicts with drivers, and yet they think it’s stupid to stop at a red light. They just don’t connect these two things", ">\n\nMost bikers I encounter are complete idiots. Like I'd be driving normally and out of nowhere comes a biker on a crosswalk in full speed. Now, I appreciate bikers who actually stop and make eye contact with me as I'm driving towards the crosswalk but man, it's either that or the biker almost dies because I have no time to brake.\nAnd what's up with all the bikers going like 5 kmh IN THE MIDDLE of a road when there's a dedicated sidewalk for bikers right next to them? Drives me insane.", ">\n\nIt seems like most bikers because of observation bias.\nIf you follow the rules as you should, you’re unmemorable.\nAs for the sidewalks - its actually less safe on the sidewalk.", ">\n\nThe reason it's not safer is because cars aren't looking for bikes there, so a bike moving any faster than a person walks, isn't in going to be seen, nor expected.", ">\n\nI know. But I'm not riding together in the same lane with traffic where the speed limit is 40 MPH.", ">\n\nThe idea is that cars give bikers space so they can ride on the side of the road, but when that doesn't happen, it becomes safer to just take the lane.\nIt's a shit situation, because it causes drivers to dislike cyclists, and then more cyclists feel unsafe.", ">\n\nSame! I love walking. Where I live on popular trails, there are bike lanes, but the cyclists will just ride wherever they. They don’t care and won’t let you know they’re coming. They’ll get pissy if you don’t just automatically know they’re coming up from behind you. If you do much as step foot in the bike lane, they get mad, but have no problems riding side by side outside the bike lane.", ">\n\nSame here! So much for my pleasant walk on the beautiful Trail. They sneak up and when they're almost on top of me, a loud voice yells \"On your left!\" They startle the shit out of me and cause me to jump sky high! 😡", ">\n\nIt’s literally the law to say that. This thread is all about hating them no matter if they follow the law or not.", ">\n\nBut the problem is half the time they don’t follow the laws. In my city they want to be both cars and pedestrians but they don’t follow the laws governing either and expect to be catered to. Cyclists are some of the worst possible people for following the laws and are a major cause of accidents, especially in intersections, because so many of them just decide the rules/laws aren’t for them.", ">\n\nThe rules and laws literally weren't designed to protect cyclists, though. The laws take no consideration of how bicycles operate.", ">\n\nAs a mostly former cyclist, I often hated cyclists too. Mostly, because so many cyclist are just competitive asshats that suck the pleasure out of their own bike ride by making everything about speed. Like, heaven forbid they have to slow and yield to anyone.\nOnce, I was riding my bicycle with my young daughter on a bike path in the city. A couple cyclist came up and got all pissy at us, saying we need to be out of the cycle lane because we were going too slow and my 8 year old kid wasn't keeping to a narrow lane. It was so hostile - my kid started crying.\nBut that is just so typical, all the time. I've gotten yelled out a few times when I made a full, foot down stop at a redlight because the cyclist behind me was expecting me to either run the redlight or at least go into the crosswalk and dance around (like they do) until it went green. I remember nearly getting run over by cyclists all the time, and yelled at if I was going too slow.\nThat being said, we need to do 100,000 x more in the US towards making bike paths, protected bike lanes, etc., because cyling is a truly great way to get around and I miss it. I just don't miss the self-centered asshats that dominate the cycling community.", ">\n\nThis!", ">\n\nAs a pedestrian, I hate everyone who's not a pedestrian... And some pedestrians too.", ">\n\nMy biggest gripe about cyclists is that there is always some danger when you encounter them on the road, either as a pedestrian or motorist. Now, part of it isn’t their fault. At least here in the US, not much of the infrastructure is made for bicycles. But cyclists are constantly breaking the rules of the road (or sidewalk) to get where they’re going faster. Blowing red lights, leaving the bike lane to use the sidewalk, splitting lanes. I always clench a little when I approach one, wondering if this is the day I can’t get out of the way.", ">\n\nWe have that same problem, but then a million times worse, because I live in The Netherlands. You probably know about our proud cycling culture (the Amsterdam stereotype). And yes, cyclists here are just as bad as the ones you describe, but there’s a lot more of them here. And oh yeah, traffic laws are almost always in their favor.", ">\n\nThe laws are in their favor, even if they're not following them or ignoring even basic traffic laws (haaientanden).\nI mean, come on, if one would have a dash cam with video proof, how worse it would be, it should be able to help the motorist.", ">\n\nYes, but unfortunately not everyone has a dashcam, which should actually be mandatory to be honest. But then again, if us motorists have to buy a dashcam with our own money just to prove that a cyclist was in the wrong (as they are a bit more privileged according to the law), they still indirectly cost motorists money (dashcam’s aren’t free, sadly).", ">\n\nNo there not free, but just get one. It could save you a whole lot of headaches.", ">\n\nAgree, thanks for the tip vriendelijke vriend!", ">\n\nHello. \nMy useless comment to this post is here :D\nSo, i work in the accidents department of a big insurance company. My country is very strickt about the road rules, meaning:\nOur company estimates (is this the right word?) that around 82% of accidents involving cyclists, are to blame on the cyclist. Since there are expecific places on the road for you to ride your bike, even if it's not a bike lane.\nI remember a case where 3 dudes were just cycling, outside of town and they were literally on the middle of the road. the place where they were is full of curves and has very little visibility, so they were riding side by side, middle of the road, comes a car, hits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\nThey sued her and us (insurance) 2 times. Lost both and had to pay for all damage done on the car by their own bodys", ">\n\n\nhits not one, but the 3 of them because they scared the person and she just swerved the car.\n\nI'm trying to picture this, they were in the oncoming lane, around a corner, seeing people on a bicycle actually scared her somehow, and she drove into the oncoming lane of traffic? Isn't the usually tendency to break when scared, not to drive towards and into the thing that has scared you?", ">\n\nWell... yes and no. When something comes suddenly in your field of view, your eyes are attracted to that thing and you focus on it. And the thing with driving is we tend to reflexively aim where our eyes are looking. So basically, if you look to your left, you'll unconsciously steer in that direction a little. It's possible in the panic, she swerved where her eyes found the clyclists by reflex", ">\n\nWhile there's some truth to what you're saying, I still don't find it real plausible to have hit all three bicyclists as a result of a fright reaction.", ">\n\nYeah I'm skeptical myself. I'm just saying it could be a possibility. Maybe she was just not very bright or a great driver. But it's hard to judge. we don't know how we'd react in the panic of the moment if we lived this situation. I doubt it was intentional tho.", ">\n\ni know it kinda sounds like bs, but you would't imagine the things that actually happen on accidents (and the pictures i have colleted of funny stuff) . \nThis was indeed the discription (?) of the accident made by the three dudes, the lady did not say they were liying.\nin this case the violations were that they were cycling outside the designated area, without the proper equipment (reflective vests) in a place with low visibility, two of them were occupiying (?) her side of the road.", ">\n\nIdk maybe my town is weird like everwhere on the internet and even in statistics you hear stuff like that but then I haven't really seen any cyclists run red lights ever and as someone who maybe not often but sometimes cycles, the last thing I'd do as a cyclist is run a red light like I don't wanna die?", ">\n\nThis bicyclist used to harass people walking on the sidewalk by my job a few years back. He'd ride up on them really fast and yell loudly for them to get out of his way. He'd then almost run them over while flipping them off laughing all the way about it. One day an irate customer was outside waiting for him. He tossed a good sized tree limb into his spokes as he rushed by. Lol....he went flying and fractured his shoulder. I hear he missed 9 months of work", ">\n\nJerrySeinfeldThatsAShame.gif", ">\n\nI’d have no problem if cyclist had respect for other road users. where I live there are cycle lanes, but most cyclists are on the road or pavements, they ignore red lights etc. \nIf you want to cycle please make it’s safe for yourself and others around you.", ">\n\nExactly my thoughts", ">\n\nHonestly, selfish assholes exist everywhere but a selfish asshole on a bicycle does a lot less damage than a selfish asshole in a car. \nEDIT: OP's also downvoting everyone who disagrees with him, just fyi.", ">\n\nCyclists treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs (at best). They’re not allowed on sidewalks but do it anyway. Fuckin hate cyclists.", ">\n\nEverything you said is completely legal in Denver and sidewalks are illegal , but drivers constantly scream at cyclists to ride there", ">\n\nCyclist can roll stop signs and run red lights in Denver? What the fuck?", ">\n\nIt's frustrating how often cyclists get yelled at for doing stuff that's completely legal and actually makes traffic smoother for everyone.", ">\n\nI skateboard so I guess I'm good", ">\n\nJust don't be doing tricks on a stairway leading to the road and you're good!", ">\n\nI think everyone hates cyclists. Cyclists included.", ">\n\nThere's a reason so many cyclists die each year, they all seem to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. Its always safer to assume they'll do whatever they want and everyone else needs to adapt to them.", ">\n\nAs a driver downtown, I don't worry at all about pedestrians at intersections, I can turn my head and assume they will be maybe five feet closer to my car when I look back, (and I trust they won't sprint towards me when I look away, at their own peril), but bikes, they ride so fast, that in the short time I turn my head to check for oncoming traffic, a bike could materialize right beside / infront me, and I risk hitting them or them hitting the side of my car. And that's even in their designated bike lane, that I have to pass through to clear the intersection. And if I drive into a ped at three miles per hour, they will just hit my hood with their fist and call me a stupid motherfucker, or whatever makes them feel justice was served, but if I bump the bike, it will be a big crash, the bicyclist will be all curled up in a ball on the ground, I'll be the bad guy in the eyes of the law and anyone nearby, and I'll probably be late as fuck to wherever it is I'm trying to go to.", ">\n\nNot unpopular.\n Everyone hates cyclists.", ">\n\nFalse", ">\n\nas a cyclist I hate everyone", ">\n\nSame, I see posts like this where people tell us to ride on the sidewalk when it’s illegal. \nThey assume we don’t walk anywhere, drive, etc like we are essentially subhuman for doing exercise.\nThey tell us to ride closer to the right side of the road so we get hit by a car door. \nThey’re mad that we give a verbal signal that we’re coming up on the left even though that’s the law. \nnow that I’m in Colorado I’m getting yelled at for the Idaho stop, which is completely legal. We yield to stop signs and temporarily stop at red light only till it’s clear. It’s all to REDUCE CAR TRAFFIC.\nSo far I’ve had family members die from hit and runs and drunk drivers, but somehow cyclists are the most dangerous thing on the road today.\nWhat is this really about?", ">\n\nIt's probably posted by a car driver who only walks recreationally.", ">\n\nIt is regrettable that a handful of asshole cyclists ruins everyone’s opinion of us. It really undermines the support needed to improve infrastructure for cycling. \nIf it is any help, when i ring my bell, I am doing so to avoid the alternatives of either yelling a warning or startling people. I normally exit the path and pass on the grass. I would say that most cyclist are the same. I don’t want you to get out of the way, I want you to know I am there. \nBut it only takes a couple assholes that think they own the path or the street. I have a cousin like this and it is difficult to convince him his is wrong and is putting himself and others in danger.", ">\n\nI think the a-holes are people that are only on a bike because it's the easiest thing for them, living where they do. You and those like you are on the bike because you love cycling.", ">\n\nMan, y'all are sad people. \n\"Get off the road!\" Okay, now we are on the sidewalk. \n\"Get off the sidewalk!\" Back in the road again. \n\"They need to ring their bells so we know they're coming! Btw I hate it when they ring their bells so I know they're coming.\"" ]